---

Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

I am grateful for the opportunity to make the briefest of comments, particularly as I have not been here for most of the debate. The reason for my absence is that I have been in another Parliament today—the European Parliament. As a result of the generosity of Eurostar, which has decided to run a service from Ashford from Brussels, it is possible to be in two Parliaments on the same day, although sadly I have missed the greater part of the debate. I want briefly to say two things. First, the Bill shows the Government's absolute commitment to skills and further education. It is exciting that it contains so much good. Coming from Hastings, I am fortunate to be the beneficiary of the Government's enormous commitment, with the new £92 million south coast college, which is being built at the moment and which will be operational by the end of the year. That £92 million is £92 million more than the total budget for new build in 1996. I just mention that fact in passing, but that money is an amazing investment on the part of the Government and shows their commitment to skills and further education. The other point that I want to make is not a negative one, because I understand from other Members that my colleagues on the Front Bench have already addressed the clauses in part 10, chapter 4 that relate to the setting up of the school support staff negotiating body. The reason for doing so is the high regard that the Government have for support staff, not least because of the increase in numbers, from 134,000 to 322,000, but because of the recognition that they are often not properly paid. Ensuring that they are properly paid and rewarded for what they do is central to the setting up of the school support staff negotiating body. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) said a moment ago, the unions are concerned, although not about how this Secretary of State might use his powers under clause 220 effectively to veto the possibility of a negotiated outcome of whatever is agreed, but about the potential for another Secretary of State to do so. We are not being pessimistic: we do not suspect that there will be any other Secretary of State in the near or foreseeable future. However, should that unlikely event occur, how can we ensure that those marvellous people—the support staff—are not short-changed if proper negotiations have taken place with their unions in that body, which we all believe is the right thing to do. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could assure us in responding that, at the very least, that veto will be subject to certain regulations, so that a properly negotiated arrangement is not vetoed by those of ill will.